If All You See…

By William Teach January 2, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is evil hamburgers made from planet killing cows, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Watts Up With That? with a post on yet another hotcoldwetdry busted alarm.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Thing Of The Past: Largest US New Year’s Day Snow Coverage Since 1996

By William Teach January 2, 2013 – 10:00 am

Because schoolkids won’t know what snow looks like

Of course, I suppose we’re supposed to blame all this snow on “carbon pollution” or something.

Read: Thing Of The Past: Largest US New Year’s Day Snow Coverage Since 1996 »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama: “I Will Not Negotiate Over Debt Ceiling”

By William Teach January 2, 2013 – 7:05 am

Der Fuhrer has spoken

(Slate) In a brief address Tuesday night, President Obama saluted the passage of a fiscal cliff deal that the White House had negotiated with the Senate. Then he fired a warning shot at Congressional Republicans, saying he won’t tolerate another down-to-the-wire battle over the debt ceiling this spring.

“I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they’ve already racked up,” he said. “If Congress refuses to give the U.S. government the ability to repay these bills on time, the consequences for the global economy would be catastrophic—far worse than a fiscal cliff.”

He concluded by calling for a 2013 marked by “a little bit less drama, a little bit less brinksmanship,” and suggested the government “not scare the heck out of folks quite as much” the next time it has a major fiscal debate.

As it stands, the fiscal cliff deal is expected to add $4 trillion to the US debt over the next decade per the CBO (said debt hit $16.4 trillion on Monday). And it breaks down to $41 in tax increases for every $1 cut. Quite a far cry from the $3 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases Obama was yammering about out on the campaign trail, eh? Unfortunately, there were 51% who were just too moronic to understand that the man is a liar.

Said deal includes all sorts of perks, such as an extension of a Hollywood tax incentive. And does nothing to reduce, or even control spending. But, let’s face it, elected Republicans allowed Obama to run them over, with the help of the compliant liberal media. But, now Obama and the Democrats own this economy lock, stock, and barrel. Whatever happens, it’s theirs.

What’s next? Well, we have the aforementioned debt ceiling debate fight. We also have

2. Sequester: The so-called sequester is a series of automatic cuts in federal spending that will reduce the budgets of most agencies and programs by 8% to 10%.

Which really only amounts to about $110 billion, a drop in the bucket compared to Central Government spending, and

3. Continuing Budget Resolution: The federal government works on a fiscal year that starts every Oct. 1. Problem is it has been years since it actually enacted a real budget on time.

Because the Senate refuses to pass a budget, one of their legally required duties.

And now Obama’s back to Hawaii, costing the taxpayers more money so that he can take a planet killing fossil fueled flight to resume his 1%er vacation.

Read: Obama: “I Will Not Negotiate Over Debt Ceiling” »

Posted in Barry Obama, Current Affairs, Democrats, Economy, GOP | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Guns Are Good For Journal News But Not For Those Whose Addresses They Published

By William Teach January 2, 2013 – 6:34 am

If you’ll remember, The Journal News published a Google map containing the names and addresses of those in 2 NY counties who have handgun permits. This was purely done in an attempt to shame and expose those who expressed their 2nd Amendment rights. Of course, what it did was tell criminals which homes they should not rob, namely those with guns. But, what about The Journal News itself?

(Rockland County Times) Guns are good for the goose but NOT for the gander.

A Clarkstown police report issued on December 28, 2012, confirmed that The Journal News has hired armed security guards from New City-based RGA Investigations and that they are manning the newspaper’s Rockland County headquarters at 1 Crosfield Ave., West Nyack, through at least tomorrow, Wednesday, January 2, 2013.

According to police reports on public record, Journal News Rockland Editor Caryn A. McBride was alarmed by the volume of “negative correspondence,” namely an avalanche of phone calls and emails to the Journal News office, following the newspaper’s publishing of a map of all pistol permit holders in Rockland and Westchester.

Due to apparent safety concerns, the newspaper then decided to hire RGA Investigations to provide armed personnel to man the location.

There you go. She was concerned with safety, so she hired people packing guns. Which is the primary reason law abiding citizens obtain a handgun permit and purchase a handgun, for safety. And here’s some serious sarcasm from one of comments by Cody Allen

I do not see how they justify armed guards. Newspaper offices should be gun free zones. They simply need to develop a plan in which a code red blue or whatever is issued. Employees should close their doors and hide under their desks. Do not open the doors or come out from under the desks until a police officer comes into the room to tell you your safe. Impress on them the importance of being quiet. The police response time should be within minutes and given this plan the odds of a particular employee being killed is minimized.

Liberals like McBride expect Other People to be disarmed and to depend on police showing up after the crime, but, for themselves? Armed guards. Humorously, many of the same people they exposed in their map are probably law enforcement and employees of the company they hired as security.

Weasel Zippers calls this “assploding irony”.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Guns Are Good For Journal News But Not For Those Whose Addresses They Published »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Barking Moonbats, Liberal World | 35 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 1, 2013 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil CO2 infused beer sitting on an evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The first blog of the day is Gay Patriot, with a post on whom the Grand Conservative Blogress Diva is.

And the second blog of the day is Neoneocon, the winner of the Blogress Diva award, with a post on crazy Occupiers.

More New Year’s Day drunk under the fold

Read More »

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Some Dealers Say “Nyet!” To Carrying Chevy Fuego, Er, Volt

By William Teach January 1, 2013 – 11:30 am

What happens when you take a “car” that costs $89,000 to make and is sold for $49,000 and shove it at dealers? (via Doug Ross, who has a handy dandy picture of what a Volt arriving at a dealership looks like)

(Auto Guide) Thanks to additional costs for services and repairs, some Chevy dealers are choosing not to carry the Volt.

According to Automotive News, the sales of the Volt at some dealerships does not justify the cost of special tools needed to repair and service the vehicles. Dealers are spending up to $5,000 on tools, including a new item that is needed to drain the vehicle’s battery to send back to GM in case of repairs.

Despite sales of the Volt reaching 20,828 through November, some dealers are unable to sell enough of the range-extended electric cars to make up the cost of the parts. Requiring to sell just five Volts to break-even on the costs of the tools, some dealers are instead opting out of the Volt authorized dealer program. Dealers believe that GM is raising the requirements to be a certified Volt dealer in order to create a smaller network of dealerships that would provide more Volts to more successful dealers and areas.

I wonder what the cost of all those new specialized fire extinguishers costs?

This might be a good time for a refresher on Crazy Barry’s Chevy Volt Sale

Read: Bummer: Some Dealers Say “Nyet!” To Carrying Chevy Fuego, Er, Volt »

Posted in Barry Obama, Global Warming | 22 Comments | Trackback URL

David Brooks: This Fiscal Cliff Deal Is Rather A Crapburger, Eh?

By William Teach January 1, 2013 – 8:01 am

The NY Times’ resident “conservative” (who resembles a conservative about as much as Nancy Pelosi) offers up a nice summary of the fiscal cliff deal.

Another Fiscal Flop

After first expounding that the public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product went from around 38 percent in 1965 to 74% now, that it could hit 90% in a decade, and 247% in 30 years, he notes that while some may talk about Doing Something, no one does, and this deal doesn’t deal with it at all. Then we get

President Obama and Speaker John Boehner both earnestly wanted to achieve these things. But the deal we are heading toward is discouraging. Yes, the deal does raise $600 billion in revenue over 10 years from a tiny sliver of the population (compared with the $8 trillion in new debt likely to be accrued over that time).

Remember when Obama called half that debt unpatriotic? Then increased the debt by $6 trillion?

But the proposal is not a balance of taxes and spending cuts. It doesn’t involve a single hard decision. It does little to control spending. It abandons all of the entitlement reform ideas that have been thrown around. It locks in low tax rates on families making less than around $450,000; it is simply impossible to avert catastrophe unless tax increases go below that line.

Along with raising the income tax rates on $400k individual and $450k join filer to 39.6%, along with moving the capital gains rate to 20% from 15% for those same earners. Unemployment insurance would be extended for a year with no offsets. The “sequester” would be put off for 2 months, which is a whopping $110 billion in cuts. The estate tax would go up to 40% from 35%. Deductions for high earners would be limited. The wind farm tax credit is extended, as well as many other “green” energy tax credits. And lots of other tax credits, both individual and corporate. Know what’s not included? And spending reductions. And spending reforms. And acknowledgement of the severe federal government spending issues.

Whom should we blame for this? Again, we should not blame Obama and Boehner. In their different ways, they and a number of other people in the Congress are trying to find a politically palatable way to deal with these hard issues. They got what conditions allowed.

No, David, there’s plenty of blame for both, along with Senate Democrats, though Obama gets the lions share, since he was unwilling to live in the real world and make substantive changes as he drives America into a coffin, along with Democrats, who said that ever “safety net” program was off the table.

Ultimately, we should blame the American voters. The average Medicare couple pays $109,000 into the program and gets $343,000 in benefits out, according to the Urban Institute. This is $234,000 in free money. Many voters have decided they like spending a lot on themselves and pushing costs onto their children and grandchildren. They have decided they like borrowing up to $1 trillion a year for tax credits, disability payments, defense contracts and the rest. They have found that the original Keynesian rationale for these deficits provides a perfect cover for permanent deficit-living. They have made it clear that they will destroy any politician who tries to stop them from cost-shifting in this way.

For a change, Brooks makes sense. There are too many voters who want their free stuff, their free Obamaphone, free healthcare, their free welfare, their free everything paid for by other people. There are too many moochers, that 47% who have a net zero federal liability on income tax. Too many who vote themselves money. Too few politicians stand up against this notion, and too many run on giving free stuff. And we have a president who is the king of free stuff. And too many voters who have no business voting. They do not know the issues, and, really, if someone is living off the teet of the government, in most cases they should not be voting.

Oh, and David? We can blame the media, especially your newspaper, for railing against any and all substantive changes that reign in the debt and spending, other than jacking up tax rates.

Read: David Brooks: This Fiscal Cliff Deal Is Rather A Crapburger, Eh? »

Posted in Current Affairs, Economy | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

A New Year’s Prediction Challenge For Climate Alarmists

By William Teach January 1, 2013 – 7:27 am

Happy New Year’s! Welcome to 2013! And one year closer to End Of Life As We Know it. 2150 and 2200 are fast approaching, the primary dates that the climate alarmists always want to use to denote when Earth is going to burn, baby, burn in fire, dan dan daaaan, fire, dan dan daaaaan.

New Year’s is usually a time when we make resolutions which we abandon when we realize that chocolate, bacon, and beer are great (and bacon cooked in beer and covered with chocolate!) In the blogosphere, we often make predictions for the New Year. Instead, how about a challenge?

For a long time, the alarmists have been making predictions as to what the climate will do. They say in 10 years, 50, 100. Instead, why not, say, make predictions for……2013! What I want for them to do, from the biggest of big climahypocrites, such as Al Gore, James Hansen, Barack Obama, and Leonardo DiCaprio, to the smallest climate dupes, is tell us exactly what the climate will do this year. For some of these questions, I’m using the USA, but, alarmists from around the world can use their own country/region, if they like:

  • What will the average temperature of the Earth be for 2013? Most scientists place it at 59 degrees F (15 C). How far above, or below, will it be?
  • What will the average temperature be for the USA?  The rough average for the USA is 53 F.
  • How many tropical systems will there be in the Atlantic? How many will hit the USA?
  • What will the four seasons do in 2013? Warmer, colder, hotter, wetter? Tell us
  • What will each month look like in the USA? How about in your home state?
  • Which months will be above average, and which ones below, temperature wise?
  • What states will have big floods, and during what months?
  • What will tornado season look like?
  • How many destructive thunderstorms will there be, and in which states?
  • How many “extreme” weather events will there be?
  • How much ice will the poles gain/lose?
  • Will the Arctic be ice free this summer?
  • What will the average precipitation be for your home city? Average temperature? Average low’s and highs?
  • How many earthquakes will there be (since, apparently, climate change/globull warming creates earthquakes)?
  • Pick an island, and tell us how much the sea will rise around it.

There are many, many, many more questions that can be asked, but, I know what the alarmists are thinking: “Teach, that is weather, not climate! I refuse to participate!” Ah, but, what, exactly, is climate? Let’s pull a couple good definitions

  • Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological elements in a given region over long periods of time
  • Climate is the average weather conditions at a particular place over a long period of time. Climate is the long-term predictable state of the atmosphere. It is affected by physical features such as mountains, rivers, positioning of the globe, plateaus, deserts, depressions and much more.
  • The general or typical atmospheric conditions for a place and/or period of time. Conditions include rainfall, temperature, thunderstorms, lightning, freezes, etc.

Notice, “long term predictable.” Weather and other natural forces create climate. And right now the alarmists are saying “but, Teach, one year is not considered to be a “long period of time!”” Well, you have plenty of data available for the long term, and, with all your vast knowledge of what the climate is doing, due to man’s release of greenhouse gases, surely you alarmists can make predictions for 2013 based on that long term data, and be mostly correct, right? Surely, you aren’t afraid to make predictions for this year, and tell us what the climate during 2013 will do, right? But, you have to make your predictions, and can’t go back and change them up as the year goes on. And at the end of the year, we will see how well you have done.

Plus, all you Warmists are now blaming every single weather event, whether it be hot, cold, wet, dry, on “climate change”, a completely unscientific phrase. You’re also blaming every geophysical event, such as earthquakes and volcanoes, on “climate change”.

Any alarmist up for the challenge? And no cheating be reading the Farmer’s Almanac, which tends to be right way more than the Met, NASA, UN IPCC, and other alarmist groups are. Forget about your PR blitzes, “spreading awareness” campaigns, your advocacy, your stunts, and tell us what will happen. If you’re correct, for a change, maybe people will start to believe you again.

Oh, and a second challenge:

  • How much will you reduce your fossil fuels usage by?
  • Will you give up fossil fuels altogether?
  • Will you go “carbon neutral?”
  • Will you start taking 2 minute showers?
  • Will you give up your ice maker?
  • Will you promise to unplug every appliance when not in use?
  • Will you shop local?

Those are just a few of the things you can do to practice what you preach. Will you do it?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU

Read: A New Year’s Prediction Challenge For Climate Alarmists »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Op-Ed: Scrap That Pesky Constitution

By William Teach December 31, 2012 – 2:11 pm

Mostly because it gets in the way of far left Progressive ideals, also known as fascism (via The Lonely Conservative)

(NY times) AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation’s fate?

Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what JamesMadison might have wanted done 225 years ago.

As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is.

Government is somewhat working the way it was envisioned at the federal level: gridlock. The power was supposed to be left in the hands of The People and the States.

Progressives are always unhappy that the pesky Constitution gets in the way when it comes to shoving their beliefs down other people’s throats. They would prefer the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany models.

Read: NY Times Op-Ed: Scrap That Pesky Constitution »

Posted in Constitution, Unhinged Tools | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 31, 2012 – 1:00 pm

…is evil CO2 infused beer used to celebrate the New Year in a boiling world, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bookworm Room, with a post on the tactless president.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove